Is modern science informing us of a spiritual reality?

[Twilight Hue]

I think things like quantum entanglement defy physical description. Im open to the possibility of something more. But who knows.

The reason I say that is because of interaction with matter. Something has to tangibly interact for us to know it's allegedly there in the first place.

 

[Native]

Thanks for that.

Our senses are those parts of our nervous system that convey information about external reality to our brains, to our sense of self.

What are 'inner senses'? How can anything we attribute to our 'inner senses' be distinguished from stuff we've simply imagined?

-----------------

"Our inner senses" is can be the "third eye" observations under meditation - and if having an out-of-body experience our intuition immediately recognizes what is going on.

 

[MonkeyFire]

A spirit (soul) is to a angel as the heart is to the human.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So what do you say? Are there things non material?

Won't this always simply come down to semantics? If we observe a phenomenon - even something like a "ghost" let's say, or we find someone who can move objects with their mind alone - if we probe and come to an understanding of the phenomenon, then doesn't our sphere of what is possible in the universe under "natural" conditions simply expand? Even the word "material" could be used to apply to anything we find that we can detect and measure within our universe.

We can literally only call something "supernatural" if it is not to be found in nature. Once it is found in nature, it is no longer supernatural. The same as if we call something "immaterial" and then we find it as a measurable "something" within our observable, testable universe. We could easily just expand what the term "material" encompasses to include this new "something."

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Or does modern science create the possibility that there is a spiritual reality?

This question doesn't make a lot of sense

Or is it hands off on the matter with no way to rule in or out the spiritual reality?

Science deals in objective evidence, determined by repeatable experiments. Unless your "spiritual reality" is deterministic and follows regular laws, science has no way of making any determination about it.

 

[Phantasman]

I don't know what to say to that, except John 5:46.

Then see it in the entirety:

John 5:
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41 I receive not honour from men.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?



Moses wasn't truth. He gave a Law for flesh. Christ fulfilled the Law through love that the Holy Spirit provided. No Jew had ever had this.

John 1:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


Moses was never the truth. He started a path that Jesus as Christ ended. John 5:36 says Jesus came to finish what had started. And he did so with the words "It is finished". Once risen, he gave the Holy Ghost that had guided him as Christ to those whom he saw after he arose (Paul says more than 500). But he clearly gave the Spirit (mother) to the disciples John 20:22

He couldn't give it until he taught who it was and how to use it. John 7:39

The OT was closed (finished) and the gnosis of the Spirit began by those who had received it. The catholics have divided the early Christian books to appease the OT Pharisee's. They teach the Bible instead of the Gospel.

Galatians Chapter 1 and 2 speaks of Pauls struggle with this "new" gospel based on the Jews religion.

Which is why I left orthodoxy decades ago, for spiritual gnosis from the Spirit.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Mainstream science should still be agnostic on the question of a spiritual reality.

yes

However I do see a more moving away from the mechanical understanding (allowing for spiritual realities) since the general acceptance of quantum mechanics, multiple dimensions, acceptance that consciousness is not yet understood, etc..

Non belief in Newtonian determinism does not immediately mean accepting spirituality. Just because we don't have a complete understanding of the mechanics of consciousness, and the fact that quantum theory means the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic, doesn't mean that there's any sort of spirituality involved.

 

[osgart]

So 'spiritual' is another word for 'emotional' or 'desiring' then?

No, but it embodies those aspects.

 

[osgart]

This question doesn't make a lot of sense
Science deals in objective evidence, determined by repeatable experiments. Unless your "spiritual reality" is deterministic and follows regular laws, science has no way of making any determination about it.

We can be objective about our own subjectivities.

 

[osgart]

Won't this always simply come down to semantics? If we observe a phenomenon - even something like a "ghost" let's say, or we find someone who can move objects with their mind alone - if we probe and come to an understanding of the phenomenon, then doesn't our sphere of what is possible in the universe under "natural" conditions simply expand? Even the word "material" could be used to apply to anything we find that we can detect and measure within our universe.

We can literally only call something "supernatural" if it is not to be found in nature. Once it is found in nature, it is no longer supernatural. The same as if we call something "immaterial" and then we find it as a measurable "something" within our observable, testable universe. We could easily just expand what the term "material" encompasses to include this new "something."

If they ever do detect it, i am quite sure they wont be calling it spiritual. How would somebody detect a thought or a care though?

 

[osgart]

The reason I say that is because of interaction with matter. Something has to tangibly interact for us to know it's allegedly there in the first place.

What about thought, and cares, we know we have them and they are intangible.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What about thought, and cares, we know we have them and they are intangible.

Physically intangible. That is not the only form of tangibility, however. Emotions are still subject to identifiable patterns and have measurable properties.

If you can discover any sort of spirituality that is as tangible as emotions, yes, science could measure and qualify it. No such form of spirituality has been discovered, AFDAIK.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

We can be objective about our own subjectivities.

Sure. But can we be objective about anything as subjective as spirituality? Other than to say "there is no objective evidence for this thing", of course?

 

[George-ananda]

Non belief in Newtonian determinism does not immediately mean accepting spirituality. .

Right, I would never overstate things like that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If they ever do detect it, i am quite sure they wont be calling it spiritual. How would somebody detect a thought or a care though?

Just because we can't detect and represent "thought" or "care" to any exacting degree does not mean their existence is completely free from the chains of the material medium that, by ALL appearances, seems completely necessary to support their formation and propagation.

And scientific endeavors of studying these items are still ongoing, and producing results. And I think you're right - the moment science nails anything down to an explicable process, those forming the new terminology and ideas surrounding such things will not rely on anything "spiritual." It is not within the purview of science to prescribe what we do with our thoughts or cares - so the "spiritual" community will still always have some arena within which to attempt to suppose control.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Or does modern science create the possibility that there is a spiritual reality?

Or is it hands off on the matter with no way to rule in or out the spiritual reality?

Depends what you mean by modern science. In some circles science means taking spiritual ideas off the table

However the scientific method does not exclude God or miracles
and some would argue God designed the world as a place of discovery for His glory

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Or does modern science create the possibility that there is a spiritual reality?

Or is it hands off on the matter with no way to rule in or out the spiritual reality?

Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the non-physical.

 

[blü 2]

"Our inner senses" is can be the "third eye" observations under meditation - and if having an out-of-body experience our intuition immediately recognizes what is going on.

I've tried meditation at times, not very seriously, and I've seen but not read books representing the 'third eye' notion (Tibetan, perhaps) on their covers, but I have no substantial concept of what it's about, What is it about? What is the 'third eye' said to see?

And again, how can anything it 'sees' be distinguished from the subject's own thoughts and imaginings?

 

[blü 2]

No, but it embodies those aspects.

I find many folk use 'spiritual' in a vague, shifting, rather waffling way in these contexts, and I'm trying to pin it down a bit more. Re-reading what you wrote above, I have the impression that at least you don't attach anything supernatural to it. Is that right?

Is it simply a detached, unspecific but somewhat aspirational mental state?

 

[osgart]

I find many folk use 'spiritual' in a vague, shifting, rather waffling way in these contexts, and I'm trying to pin it down a bit more. Re-reading what you wrote above, I have the impression that at least you don't attach anything supernatural to it. Is that right?

Is it simply a detached, unspecific but somewhat aspirational mental state?

It definetly is not supernatural, yes.

It perhaps exists in higher dimensions than our own. We are the essence of its existence. It is more than a mental state, it is the full embodiment of being, and it includes aspirations that culminate in realities. We are perhaps the effect of the source of it.

Being minus biology has a cause and effect reality all its own. Such as the loves, hates, cares, and ambivalences we have according to our conceptions, and understandings toward reality, and the attitudes we decide to have to other life, as well as ourselves.